AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess of the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgments as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain was duly declared in the ITR for Assessment Year 2015–16. 3.3 The assessments for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 for both the assessee and his father were scrutinized under Section 143(3). Notably, for AY 2015-16, a notice under Section 143(2) for limited scrutiny was issued by the non-jurisdictional AO, Ward

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that